Why Trump (Or, America In Fragments)

Introductıon 2016 Presidential elections of U.S resulted in a way that neither political analysts nor the polls could predict. As a New York Times, infographic study shows, almost all of the polls were predicting not an easy but a comfortable victory for Hillary Clinton, who was the nominee of Democratic Party (NYTimes, 2015). However, with the victory of an outsider populist, Donald J. Trump who was speaking off a very unusual language and promising offensive changes such as building a Wall to the Mexican border, the end result has been a shock not just in U.S but also all around the world within people who could not provide a structural analysis for this. Although hundreds of studies have been made after the election of Trump, it is still hard to distinguish between main reasons, factors and consequences that led to such an unpredicted and unprecedented process in a country where liberal democracy was considered as the absolute system politically and socially. In this regard, by using the studies conducted after elections and social, historical analysis that we have, this paper is aimed to briefly discuss and analyze the factors that brought Trump into power. At that point, it should be reminded that framework that we are analyzing-Trump's victory-should not just be considered as an ordinary political change but rather a challenge to very roots of American democracy and capitalism. Thus, it is appropriate to problematize the situation as crises of American liberal democracy and capitalism. Overview In my judgment, If we are ever to understand Trump's political success, we should not consider one single factor as the absolute cause but rather we should have come up with more than one variable which might be telescoped to each other, to be able to provide a structural analysis. To do not leave space for ambiguity, we should also provide an analysis of what might stimulate those factors to be materialized as transformative and challenging phenomenon in terms of the political order. By considering this, I believe that there were three type factors which led to Trump's discourse toward a victory. Those factors are consist of economic factors that are at the very base of the issue in a way that political revolt would not occur without them, social/cultural factors that were form of existence of the political mobilization of Trumpism and factors that are related to U.S political elite and system which created and reproduced the deadlock. Before explaining these factors in detail, it should also be clearly emphasized at the beginning that main reason why those factors rose and reproduced was within the context third reason: the Political elite of U.S was unable and

Fast Capitalism, 2016

In the contemporary capitalist global economy, as many of the authors in this issue of Fast Capitalism assert, markets have been remade by neoliberal leaders and organizations to favor greater global finance, manufacturing, and trade over preserving the prosperity of entire national economies. Under the blows of the austerity that such policies bring, democratic political hopes and cultural traditions are suffering new crises and shocks. From the Brexit vote in Great Britain, a hard-line party crackdown in China, and low intensity warfare with Russia in Ukraine to a failed coup in Turkey, a severe presidential crisis in Brazil, and the ongoing fragmentation Syria in its brutal civil war, the struggles between ruling elites and restive mass publics are becoming more bitter and severe. In this respect, the United States plainly is no longer an exceptional country. Indeed, as the 2016 presidential primaries for the Democratic and Republican parties in the United States of America have unfolded both at home and around the world, the crass culture of "reality TV" with its heated celebrations of extraordinary individual wealth, cruel competitive gamesmanship, and vicious spectacles of personal debasement simply to gain a bigger audience and dominate daily discussion incredibly has colonized the presidential elections in the USA. The centerpiece of this development is the bizarrely successful bid by Donald J. Trump to win the Republican Party nomination, which he captured during July 2016 despite widespread dissatisfaction in the party with this outcome. Trump's unique rhetorical mix of individual put-downs, suspiciously sweeping negative generalizations, anti-establishment insults, and xenophobic calls to greatness quickly have, in turn, become his campaign's most distinctive feature. While his bombast has started to stall going into the general campaign in August 2016, if only because of Trump's resolve to run as a Washington outsider and champion of "America First" policies, his over-the-line approach to electioneering continues to excite many alienated voters. Many political pundits are arguing that Trump also is driving away most moderate voters, and he is flagging in almost all of the swing states. Nonetheless, it is still over two weeks before Labor Day, and many electoral campaigns find new focus and energy as Election Day draws near. Even so, one must return the decades before World War II to find equally extreme politicking in a major political party's campaign messaging and policy positioning. By praising Vladimir Putin's strong leadership, harping on President Obama's African heritage, ridiculing disabled reporters for their special needs, insulting female newscasters with sexist comments, doubting the geopolitical purposes of NATO, suggesting nuclear weapons would be used in the Middle East to defeat fundamentalist Islamic terrorists, hinting gun owners in defense of the Second Amendment "might do something" about Hilary Clinton to prevent her packing the Supreme Court with anti-gun justices, and claiming President Obama founded ISIS (the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria), Trump has pressed harder on his strangely twisted appeal to the darkest fears of the GOP party faithful by taking his gloomy vision into the national campaign. He unfortunately won too many primary elections by appearing seriously to regard myths as facts, facts

Tempo do Mundo, 2019

Taking as its methodological principle the requirement to articulate long-term trends and conjunctural determinants as key to the analysis of political change, this article reviews the literature on political polarization in American society and reconstructs the ascension process of the conservative movement, as essential elements for the interpretation of the Trump phenomenon. It shows, however, that the latter is only understandable by integrating into the analysis the impact of the 2008 financial crisis, the election of Barack Obama -the first black president in US history -and the consequent outbreak of the Tea Party, a reactionary movement that had a strong destabilizing effect on the Republican Party, paving the way for the New York tycoon's overwhelming rush.

2020

In this article, we have highlighted the main dimensions of populism promoted by Donald Trump, whose discourse has sought to exploit the tensions and resentment generated by the economic, social and political crises in recent years. Our aim was to explain the rise of Donald Trump’s unique brand of populism in relation to the defining axes of post-democracy. Referring to the election strategies of the two White House candidates during the last election, we have noticed that Trump has intensified his populist discourse in states won with a long-lasting tradition of Republican vote, states that were neglected by the Clinton campaign.

2016

Right wing political groups throughout the world are celebrating Trump's victory but rather prematurely. They traditional conservatives and liberals are sufficiently delusional to believe that they are somehow far removed from Trump-style authoritarian politics when in fact they laid the groundwork for Trump to succeed. Meanwhile, some traditional conservative political leaders around the world are wondering if right wing populism flirting with Fascism is the way to political victory, never questioning if their policies drove people to the far right. Others are questioning if BREXIT and the Trump victory really mean popular discontent with globalization under the neoliberal development model. Many analysts are already decrying the rightwing course of the American electorate, as though Clinton was a New Deal Democrat rather than a Rockefeller Republican with a more pro-Wall Street and more hawkish foreign policy than Trump. Political correctness aside, the US was already a quasi-police state before Trump under both Bush and Obama. Therefore, the socio-cultural-political landscape was fertile for the new populist Republican leader, especially considering the corruption scandals that plagued Clinton. It is not at all the case as many have argued that US democracy suddenly became bankrupt because of Trump's victory, because this was the case throughout history, with some exceptions when reformism became necessary to strengthen capitalism under the pluralistic society as during the Progressive Era and New Deal. Behind the new authoritarian figure that will become America's president, and behind the Republican victory of both houses of congress, the real power is corporate America as it always has been. Wall Street, not Washington, will determine policy under Trump who promised economic nationalism vs. globalization, isolationism vs. interventionism, job-growth oriented economy vs. jobs export oriented economy. Mainstream politicians, the media, and the entire institutional establishment have always projected the image that elections are equated with democracy. The establishment wants people to believe that the electoral process affords legitimacy to the social contract. No matter how manipulated by the political class, financial elites and the media, elections put a stamp of legitimacy on what people believe constitutes popular sovereignty. As shocking as it was for many across the US and around the world, a Trump victory represents the illusion of democracy at work in a country where voter apathy is very high in comparison with most developed countries-the US ranks 27 th in the world below Mexico and Slovakia in voter participation. Besides the illusion of popular sovereignty, elections inject a sense of hope for a new start in society – the eternal spring of politics intended to maintain the status quo. An even clearer picture emerges regarding the distasteful " steak or fish " choices, as President Obama alluded during the correspondents' dinner a few weeks before the election to indicate with pride that there is no third political choice. The larger problem is the lack of differences between 'steak and fish' (Democrats and Republicans) in every policy domain, except social, cultural/ lifestyle issues. Of course, the very high percentage of 'negatives' for both presidential candidates and the absence of alternatives other than those that the political and financial establishment chose for people to give their final approval reveals that people were voting for what each side deemed the 'lesser of two evils' – the 'steak or fish' choice that the establishment places on the menu

Academia Letters, 2021

Socialism and Democracy, 2018

Cultural Dynamics, 2017

This essay examines the social origins of the election of Donald Trump in November 2016, and assess the possible direction of his presidency. Riding the wave of middle class radicalism that began with the Tea Party insurgency, Trump’s nomination temporarily disrupted the dominance of capitalists over the Republican Party. Despite his economic nationalist rhetoric, Trump will be unable to break in practice with the neo-liberal consensus of the past forty years.

2020

In this essay, I consider Donald Trump’s electoral victory – how did it happen? – and Trumpism as a movement – what does it mean? My concerns are philosophical and non-partisan, but they are driven by a commitment to liberal constitutionalism as a form of government and liberalism as a political creed. I first describe in neutral, rhetorically cool terms how Donald Trump won the 2016 American presidential election. This description is granular. Then, in the second half of the essay, I meditate more abstractly on Trumpism as both a political movement and a movement of ideas. I first describe how populism in general, and Trumpism in particular, is a political response to a crisis of democratic representation driven by globalization. Next, turning to philosophy, I present arguments about the nature of political community made by the German anti-liberal legal theorist Carl Schmitt, with whose work aspects of President Trump’s domestic and foreign policy strongly resonate. I conclude wit...